Schutz Container Systems, Inc. v. Mauser Corp., 1:09-cv-03609

Schütz sues Mauser and NCG for trademark infringement, false advertising, and unjust enrichment related to cross-bottling of IBCs using Schütz cages with Mauser bottles.
Schütz manufactures and sells new and reconditioned IBCs under the Schütz brand; reconditioning includes washing or rebottling.
Mauser/NCG cross-bottle Schütz cages with Mauser bottles, leaving Schütz marks on remanufactured units; cross-bottled IBCs often bear Schütz branding.
Regulatory frameworks (USDOT/UN) govern testing, labeling (UN String), and certification for hazardous-material IBCs, including some cross-bottled units.
NCG is Mauser-owned and is a major cross-bottler; it supplies Mauser bottles and often uses Schütz cages in cross-bottled products, with certain units certified for hazards transport.
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on NCG’s counterclaims, and Defendants move for summary judgment on Schütz’s trademark and false advertising claims; court resolves on a motion for summary judgment and leaves issues for trial where appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NCG’s Lanham Act false advertising claim is supported.	NCG contends statements 1-5 are literally false.	Schütz argues statements are true or ambiguous.	Statements 1-5 deemed ambiguous; not literally false.
Whether UDTPA product disparagement claim lies.	NCG asserts statements 1-5 are actionable under UDTPA.	Schütz argues statements 6-19 are privileged; 1-5 not false.	Statements 1-5 not actionable; 6-19 privileged; UDTPA claim limited accordingly.
Whether Schütz has trademark rights in the Schütz name and likelihood of confusion with cross-bottled IBCs.	Schütz asserts strong, secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion; abandonment not proven.	Mauser/NCG challenge rights and likelihood of confusion.	Schütz shown to have protectable rights and likelihood of confusion; triable issues remain as to dissemination and source designation.
Whether Defendants’ false advertising and related claims fail for dissemination and literal falsity.	Claims about cross-bottling are false or misleading.	Statements not disseminated as advertising or are not literally false.	Statements 1,2,4,7-9,11-14,30 not sufficiently disseminated to constitute advertising; 26-28 may be literally false; others unresolved.
Whether unjust enrichment claim survives.	Defendants benefited from alleged misuse; unjust enrichment warranted.	No clear benefit or wrongdoing.	Issues of material fact preclude summary judgment; unjust enrichment could proceed.

Osmose, Inc. v. Viance, LLC, 612 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2010) (analysis of literally false and ambiguous statements in false advertising claims)
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 299 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2002) (elements of Lanham Act false advertising; requirement of deception and impact on purchasing decisions)
Davidoff & CIE v. PLD Int’l Corp., 263 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001) (material differences test to evaluate likelihood of confusion under first-sale/renovation context)
Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders, 331 U.S. 125 (1947) (reconditioning of marks and source confusion; disclosure of design differences)
Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 86 F.3d 1379 (5th Cir. 1996) (test for dissemination of advertising to constitute Lanham Act advertising; industry-specific dissemination)
Investacorp, Inc. v. Arabian Inv. Banking Corp. (Investacorp), 931 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1991) (secondary meaning factors for trademarks; strength of mark)